By Alan Bisbort, from the Spring 2008 issue of Environment: Yale magazine.

The state of the world’s environment, like its economy and climate, is in constant flux. And Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, has spent the better part of the last decade trying to get a statistical bead on it.

With the release of the 2008 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), Esty and his colleagues and student research assistants took a giant step forward in that effort. For one thing, the number of participating countries has, since the release of the 2006 index, increased to 149 from 133. For another, the number of statistical indicators of performance has risen to 25 from 16, tightening the focus of the EPI and, thus, increasing its usefulness to policy makers. Finally, the EPI’s reputation preceded it to Davos, Switzerland, where Esty released the 2008 rankings at the World Economic Forum in January.

“There is more interest than ever in the EPI,” said Esty, who met with delegates from participating countries and with top U.N. officials.

Two years ago, the big news at Davos was the relatively poor ranking of the United States in the EPI. This year, its rank has slipped even further, to 39th from 28th place. Among the countries that now surpass the United States in environmental performance are Albania, Croatia, Malaysia and Slovenia.

“We’re starting to see what happens when countries treat environmental issues with disdain.”
Dan Esty

“You can’t really compare the 2008 EPI with the 2006 EPI,” said Esty, who collaborated with a team from Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network in assembling the data. “The added weight given to climate change and the increase in the number of countries involved resulted in a greater shift in the numbers than would have been the case had all factors remained the same.” Nonetheless, the six policy categories examined by the index–environmental health; air pollution; water resources (replacing water quality); biodiversity and habitat; productive natural resources; and climate change (replacing sustainable energy)–were roughly the same, allowing for some continuity between the 2006 and 2008 indices.

“We’re starting to see what happens when countries treat environmental issues with disdain,” said Esty. “If you don’t pay attention, then other countries that do invest in carbon-efficient technology and economic growth will pass you by on the EPI. The United States is doing well on some environmental indicators, but it’s lagging badly on ozone preservation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and managing its water resources sustainably.”

Dean Gus Speth was less circumspect about the performance of the United States, saying, “The United States’ climatechange ranking alongside India and China near the bottom is a national disgrace.”

Almost guaranteeing a warm reception for Esty and his colleagues in Davos was Switzerland’s ranking at the top of the index. “I was, of course, accused of playing to the home court,” said Esty, laughing. “But the data show that Switzerland is the most carbon-efficient developed country in the world. They have low-carbon electric generation, using a great deal of hydropower and nuclear power, purchased from France. Their transportation system is efficient, with trains carrying much of their freight, rather than trucks.”

Esty looks ahead to creating a separate EPI just for China. “We received a grant to launch this project in China, on a provinceby- province basis,” said Esty. “I tell my students that China offers good news and bad news. The good news is that if we can turn China around environmentally, nothing else matters. The bad news is that if we can’t, nothing else matters. Their buildup of industrialization will overwhelm all of the rest of the good that is being done elsewhere on the planet.”

To view the EPI’s rankings and for information about the methodology and data used in producing the EPI, visit http://epi.yale.edu.